Urban Growth Creates Needed Homes Everyone knows that when populations grow, new homes are needed. The question is where and at what cost to families.

Those who favor growth argue that the best way to meet the need for new housing is to develop empty land outside a city. In general, land in rural areas is less expensive than city land.Building costs, too, are lower in the country than in the city. These factors keep new homes affordable.In addition, many people want homes outside of cities because they believe that suburbs are better places than cities to raise a family.

Pro-growth people say that urban growth has other benefits as well.New housing projects create jobs for construction workers. And as people move into new homes, they spend money for furniture, garden supplies, and other things.All of this spending is good for local stores. In addition, new homeowners pay taxes, which help fund roads, schools, and other city services.

Urban Sprawl Damages the Environment Everyone agrees that people need housing, say those who oppose urban sprawl. The question is where and at what cost to the environment.

These people argue that the worst way to meet the need for new housing is to develop open spaces outside a city. Open spaces are not empty land—they arehabitats for plants and animals.When land is developed, that habitat is lost and with it the wildlife that lived there. The National Wildlife Foundation warns that more than a thousand animal and plant species are in danger of dying out because of habitat loss to urban sprawl.

Anti-sprawl proponents say that urban sprawl creates other problems as well.When housing is spread out, people rely on cars for transportation, and this creates traffic jams as well as air pollution. Urban sprawl can also be detrimental to people living in small towns.They often see their taxes rise when nearby land is developed. The extra tax money is needed to pay for roads, schools, and other services required when a small town suddenly grows.

4. Portland, Oregon, 1973

Click to read caption

The Willamette Valley in Oregon is 120 miles long and 25 to 40 miles wide and has Oregon’s richest farmland. More than 170 crops are grown there. Orchards produce pears, plums, apples, and nuts while fields of sweet corn and green beans mix with colorful flowerbeds and vineyards. The Willamette Valley is not all farmland, though. Oregon’s largest city, Portland, is located at its northern edge.

Growth Threatens the Willamette Valley Portland is known as the “City of Roses” because of the fragrant rose bushes that fill its parks and gardens. Still, Portland is very much a big city, with a downtown and many businesses. Its attractions include colleges, museums, shopping areas, and a beautiful geographical setting. And, like all big cities, Portland has a lot of people.

It was Portland’s growing population that first began to worry people in the 1960s and 1970s. They feared that urban sprawl would soon gobble up the farms and forests of the Willamette Valley.

A Difficult Decision: How Best to Grow? In 1973, Governor Tom McCall called on the state legislature to deal with the issue of population growth. “We are in dire need of a state land-use policy,” McCall said. Oregon lawmakers agreed, but they weren’t sure how best to control urban growth.

There were many options that the lawmakers might have considered. For example, one might have been to allow urban growth to continue, but with a condition: for each acre of land that was developed, the state government would require that another acre be set aside to be preserved as open space.

A second option might have been to create firm boundaries around cities. Once this was done, no new development would be allowed outside these boundaries.

A third option was to ban all development in some rural areas, such as the Willamette Valley. Growth could be allowed in other areas that did not seem so valuable.

Whatever lawmakers decided, one thing was clear. Their actions would affect the future of Oregon’s people and environment.